THE ROLE OF APPRAISAL PURPOSE AND GENDER IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL EFFECTIVENESS

Abstract

Performance appraisal has been one of the most popular research topics in the field of human resource management. In these performance appraisal researches, while typical dependent variables are usually results of the performance appraisals, several different independent variables are analyzed to understand their effects on these results. The main purpose is detecting factors that should be considered for effective performance appraisals. Because of that it is a necessity to find out and control biases and errors that negatively affects the rationality of the appraisal process. According to this view, gender of ratees and raters are one of the most important independent variables that should be studied. In this context finding out whether there is a relationship between performance appraisals and gender and the way of this relationship have a critical importance. Another factor that should be considered from the point of appraisal errors and biases is the purpose of performance appraisals. Different purposes can affect the evaluations and decrease the reliability of the results. It is possible to find many different studies in the literature that examine gender and purpose of appraisals separately; but there are very few studies that consider the interaction of these two variables. In this paper written to contribute to this shortcoming, the relationship between gender and performance appraisal will be studied in terms of reliability of the appraisal results. Beside, in this study data from real organizational environment was used unlike most studies that was conducted in laboratory settings. In this context firstly the effect of gender on performance appraisal results was examined and it was seen that males get higher scores that females for both general performance results and different dimensions of performance. After that the relationship between ratees’ gender and appraisals was analyzed and it was found that both males and females are tend to give higher scores to employees with same-sex. Moreover the effect of performance purpose on appraisal results was taken into consideration and it was found that appraisals are free from the purpose of performance. Lastly gender and the purpose of performance were analyzed together. According to results while gender has no effect on performance results when the purpose is administrative, it affects performance appraisals when the purpose is developmental

Keywords

• Performance Appraisal, Gender, Purpose of Performance Appraisal

PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRMENİN ETKİNLİĞİ AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRME AMACININ VE CİNSİYETİN ROLÜ

Abstract

Performans değerlendirme, uzun yıllardır insan kaynakları yönetimi alanında popüler bir araştırma konusu olagelmiştir. Konunun tipik bağımlı değişkenini, performans ölçüm sonuçları oluştururken birçok bağımsız değişken, sonuçlar üzerindeki etkilerinin belirlenmesi üzere test edilmektedir. Buradaki temel amaç, etkin bir performans değerlendirme sistemi için göz önünde bulundurulması gereken unsurların tespit edilmesidir. Bundan dolayıdır ki değerlendirme sürecinin rasyonelliğini etkileyecek olan önyargıların ve hataların ortaya konularak kontrol altına alınması önemli bir gerekliliktir. Bu açıdan bakıldığında üzerinde durulması gereken bağımsız değişkenlerin başında değerlendiricilerin ve değerlendirilenlerin cinsiyeti gelmektedir. Bu bağlamda cinsiyet ve performans değerlendirmeleri arasında bir etkileşim olup olmadığı ve bu etkileşimin değerlendirmelerdeki sübjektifliği ne yönde etkilediğinin tespit edilmesi kritik bir önem arz etmektedir. Değerlendirmelerdeki hatalar ve önyargılarla ilişkisi açısından incelenmesi gereken önemli bir başka faktör ise değerlendirmenin amacıdır. Hedeflenen çeşitli amaçlar yapılan değerlendirmeleri etkilemekte ve sonuçların güvenilirliği üzerinde bir soru işareti bırakmaktadır. Literatürde cinsiyet ve değerlendirme amacı değişkenlerini birbirinden bağımsız olarak inceleyen birçok araştırmaya rastlamak mümkün olsa da bu iki değişkenin etkileşimlerini ele alan çalışmaların azlığı dikkat çekicidir. Bu eksikliğin giderilmesine katkı sağlamak amacıyla yapılan bu çalışmada, performans değerlendirmelerinin cinsiyet ve değerlendirme amacı ile olan ilişkisi elde edilen sonuçların güvenilirliği açısından ele alınmıştır. Aynı zamanda literatürdeki laboratuvar ortamında gerçekleştirilmiş çoğu çalışmadan farklı olarak bu çalışmada gerçek iş ortamı verilerinden faydalanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, öncelikle cinsiyetin alınan performans değerlendirme puanları üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiş ve hem çeşitli performans boyutlarında hem de genel performans sonuçlarında erkeklerin kadınlardan ortalama olarak daha yüksek puanlar aldıkları görülmüştür. Ardından değerlendirenin cinsiyetinin yapılan değerlendirmeler ile olan ilişkisi ele alınmış ve kadınlar ve erkeklerin kendi hemcinslerine daha yüksek puanlar verme eğiliminde oldukları görülmüştür. Ayrıca çalışmada değerlendirme amacının performans değerlendirme sonuçları üzerindeki etkisine bakılmış ve yapılan değerlendirmelerin amaçtan bağımsız olduğu bulunmuştur. Son olarak cinsiyet ve değerlendirme amacının ortak etkisi incelenmiş ve yönetsel amaçlı değerlendirmelerde cinsiyet bir farklılık oluşturmazken gelişimsel amaçla yapılan değerlendirmelerde cinsiyetin bir farklılık ortaya çıkardığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Performans Değerlendirme, Cinsiyet, Değerlendirme Amacı

References

1. Adebayo, S. O. ve Ogbonna, M. I. (2010) “The Effect of Gender and Different Managerial Labels on Evaluations of Managers”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, C:2 S:1, 54- 66.
2. Arvey, R. D. (1979) “Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview: Legal and Psychological Aspects”, Psychological Bulletin, C:86 S:4, 736-765.
3. Bauer, C. C. ve Baltes, B. B. (2002) “Reducing the Effects of Gender Stereotypes on Performance Evaluations”, Sex Roles, C:47 S:9/10, 465-476.
4. Bernardin, H. J., Orban, J. A. ve Carlyle, J. J. (1981) “Performance Rating as a Function of Trust in Appraisal and Rater Individual Differences”, Academy of Management Proceedings, 311-315.
5. Bernardin, H. J., Tyler, C. L. ve Villanova, P. (2009) “Rating Level and Accuracy as a Function of Rater Personality”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, C:17 S:3, 300-310.
6. Bowen, C., Swim, J. K. ve Jacobs, R. R. (2000) “Evaluating Gender Biases on Actual Job Performance of Real People: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:30 S:10, 2194-2215.
7. Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R. ve Williams, R. E. (1989) “Multiple Uses of Performance Appraisal: Prevalence and Correlates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:74 S:1, 130-135.
8. Connerly, M. L., Mecham, R. L. ve Strauss, J. P. (2008) “Gender Differences in Leadership Competencies, Expatriate Readiness, and Performace”, Gender in Management: An International Journal: C:23 S:5, 300- 316.

9. Curtis, A. B., Harvey, R. D. ve Ravden, D. (2005) “Sources of Political Distortions in Performance Appraisals”, Group & Organization Management, C:30 S:1, 42-60.
10. Deaux, K. (1979) “Self-Evaluations of Male and Female Managers”, Sex Roles, C:5 S:5, 571-580.
11. Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L. ve Truxillo D. M. (1988) “Effects of Ratee Sex and Purpose of Appraisal on the Accuracy of Performance Evaluations”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, C:7 S:3, 225-241.
12. Duehr, E. E. ve Bono, J. E. (2006) “Men, Women, and Managers: Are Streotypes Finally Changing?”, Personnel Psychology, C:59 S:4, 815-846.
13. Forsyth, D. R., Heiney, M. M. ve Wright, S. S. (1997) “Biases in Appraisals of Women Leaders”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, C:1 S:1, 98-103.
14. Furnham, A. ve Stringfield, P. (2001) “Gender Differences in Rating Reports: Female Managers are Harsher Raters, Particularly of Males”, Journal of Management Psychology, C:16 S:4, 281-288.
15. Gbadamosi, G. ve Ross, C. (2012) “Perceived Stress and Performance Appraisal Discomfort: The Moderating Effects of Core Self-Evaluations and Gender”, Public Personnel Management, C:41 S:4, 637-659.
16. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M. ve Rustichini, A. (2003) “Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, C:118 S:3, 1049-1074.
17. Greenhaus, J. H. ve Parasuraman, S. (1993) “Job Performance Attributions and Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Gender and Race Effects”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, C:55 S:2, 273-297.
18. Grund, C. ve Przemeck, J. (2012) “Subjective Performance Appraisal and Inequality Aversion”, Applied Economics, C:44 S:17, 2149-2155.
19. Gundersen, D. E., Tinsley, D. B. ve Terpstra, D. E. (1996) “Empirical Assessment of Impression Management Biases: The Potential for Performance Appraisal Error”, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, C:11 S:5, 57-76.
20. Harris, M. M. (1994) “Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal Context: A Theoretical Framework”, Journal of Management, C:20 S:4, 737-756.
21. Harris, M. M., Ispas, D. ve Schmidt, G. F. (2008) “Inaccurate Performance Ratings are a Reflection of Larger Organizational Issues”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, C:1 S:2, 190-193
22. Iqbal, M. Z. (2012) “Expanded Dimensions of the Purposes and Uses of Performance Appraisal”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, C:17 S:1, 41-63.
23. Jawahar, J. ve Williams, C. R. (1997) “Where all the Children are Above Average: A Meta Analysis of the Performance Appraisal Purpose Affect”, Personnel Psychology, C:50 S:4, 905-925.
24. Jepsen, D. M. ve Rodwell, J. J. (2009) “Justice in the Workplace: The Centrality of Social versus Judgmental Predictors of Performance Varies by Gender”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, C:20 S:10, 2066-2083.
25. Jonnergard, K., Stafsudd, A. ve Elg, U. (2010) “Performance Evaluations as Gender Barriers in Professional Organizations: A Study of Auditing Firms”, Gender, Work and Organization, C:17 S:6, 721-747.
26. Landy, F. J. ve Farr, J. L. (1980) “Performance Rating”, Psychological Bulletin, C:87 S:1, 72-107.
27. Lyness, K. S. ve Heilman, M. E. (2006) “When Fit is Fundemental: Performance Evaluations and Promotions of Upper-Level Female and Male Managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:91 S:4, 777-785.
28. Martins, L. L. ve Parsons, C. K. (2007) “Effects of Gender Diversity Management on Perceptions of Organizational Attractiveness: The Role of Individual Differences in Attitudes and Beliefs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:92 S:3, 865-875.
29. Maas, V. S. ve Torres-Gonzalez, R. (2011) “Subjective Performance Evaluation and Gender Discrimination”, Journal of Business Ethics, C:101 S:4, 667-681.
30. Maurer, T. J. ve Taylor, M. A. (1994) “Is Sex by Itself Enough - An Exploration of Gender Bias Issues in Performance Appraisal”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, C:60 S:1, 231-251.
31. McIntyre, R. M., Smith, D. E. ve Hassett, C. E. (1984) “Accuracy of Performance Ratings as Affected by Rater Training and Percieved Purpose of Rating”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:69 S:1, 147-156.
32. Millmore, M., Biggs, D. ve Morse, L. (2007) “Gender Differences within 360-Degree Managerial Performance Appraisals”, Women in Management Review, C:22 S:7, 536-551.
33. Murphy, K. R., Balzer, W. K., Kellam, K. L. ve Armstrong, J. G. (1984) “Effects of the Purpose of Rating on Accuracy in Observing Teacher Behavior and Evaluating Teaching Performance”, Journal of Educational Psychology, C:76 S:1, 45-54.
34. Patiar, A. ve Mia, L. (2008) “The Effect of Subordinates’ Gender on the Difference between Self-Ratings, Superiors’ Ratings, of Subordinates’ Performance in Hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, C:27 S:1, 53-64.
35. Payne, M. J. (2011) “The Impact of Rater’s Gender on Performance Evaluations of HR Managers”, International Management Review, C:7 S:2, 5-12.
36. Prowse, P. ve Prowse, J. (2009) “The Dilemma of Performance Appraisal”, Measuring Business Excellence, C:13 S:4, 69-77.
37. Reb, J. ve Greguras, G. J. (2010) “Understanding Performance Ratings: Dynamic Performance, Attributions and Rating Purpose”, Journal of Applied Psychology, C:95 S:1, 213-220.
38. Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L. ve Bobko, P. (2012) “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies”, Journal of Management, C:38 S:2, 719-739.
39. Scherer, R. F., Owen, C. L. ve Brodzinski, J. D. (1991) “Rater and Ratee Sex Effects on Performance Evaluations in a Field Setting: A Multivariate Analysis”, Management Communication Quarterly, C:5 S:2, 174-191.
40. Shore, T. H. (1992) “Subtle Gender Bias in the Assessment of Managerial Potential”, Sex Roles, C:27 S:9/10, 499-515.
41. Shore, T. H., Adams, J. S. ve Tashchian, A. (1998) “Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings”, Journal of Business and Psychology, C:12 S:3, 283-298.
42. Spool, M. D. (1978) “Training Programs for Observer Behaviour: A Review”, Personnel Psychology, C:31 S:4, 853-888.
43. Tziner, A. ve Murphy, K. R. (1999) “Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in Performance Appraisal”, Journal of Business and Psychology, C:13 S:3, 407-419.
44. Wren, B. M. (2006) “Examining Gender Differences in Performance Evaluations, Rewards and Punishments”, Journal of Management Research, C:6 S:3, 115-124.
45. Varma, A. ve Stroh, L. K. (2001) “The Impact of Same-Sex LMX Dyads on Performance Evaluations”, Human Resource Management, C:40 S:4, 309-320.
46. Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I. ve Jones, R. G. (2007) “Perceived Pusposes of Performance Appraisal: Correlates of Individual- and Position-Focused Purposes on Attitudinal Outcomes”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, C:18 S:3, 315-343.
47. Zimmerman, R. D., Mount, M. K. ve Goff, M. (2008) “Multisource Feedback and Leaders’ Goal Performance: Moderating Effects of Rating Purpose, Rater Perspective, and Performance Dimension”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, C:16 S:2, 121-133.